jsaving

The key question when allocating skill points should always be, how much combat utility can I get from each skill? For lore, the answer is "quite a bit" -- people think of it as somehow helping you better understand the game world (and it does help a little bit if the main character maxes lore) but the main purpose is helping characters use combat-relevant scrolls. Some of these scrolls are quite good and a few are OP, so it pays to give almost everybody some ranks in lore. If you have characters who you'd like to deliver an opening attack before monsters are aware of them, it pays to give them some ranks in stealth as well (doesn't take that many to be able to move reasonably close). I agree on mechanics, though -- one person maxing it is all you need.

No matter which party member is approached by an NPC, the main character is always the one who answers. Other party members may make remarks during the conversation but are inexplicably mute whenever the main character is faced with dialogue options, even when they would know an answer and might reasonably be expected to interject at that point in the conversation. Because of this, it isn't uncommon for non-min-maxing role-players to put more emphasis on Resolve and Lore than they otherwise might. There are even a few people who've made their main characters ciphers simply because a disproportionate number of class-based dialogue checks are for ciphers. All of that said, we're not talking about Planescape here -- you won't miss much if you design your main character without regard for dialogue.

The fighter has the 4th edition D&D role of defender, and the ruleset is supposed to enable him to be "sticky" so that enemies cannot easily get past him to the backline, at least if he takes the proper selection of feats/talents. Pre-2.0, the disengagement penalty for running past a fighter were minimal but this defect in the ruleset was concealed by the poor AI which made monsters generally not disengage anyway. 2.0 corrected the poor AI which unfortunately brought the rules defect into sharper focus. What's needed now is a very significant boost to disengagement damage for the fighter, perhaps coupled with a cripple/hobble effect that would occur upon disengagement.

Well put. It would always be worthwhile if you could somehow get a multiclass talent for free, but since you can't, the question is whether any of them are good enough to "bump" an existing talent from your build. And in all honesty, most of them aren't good enough to do so, or do so only for specific party configurations. The cipher, rogue, and possibly ranger talents are generally regarded as the strongest general-interest multiclass talents. The fighter talent just doesn't add enough durability to be competitive with other deflection-boosting talents if you are a tank (or damage-boosting talents if you aren't).

Fighters were arguably the best pure tanks in the game before 2.0 because of their impressive Deflection scores. Now, they're barely more durable than a paladin and offer far less in the way of party-wide bonuses or general utility than a paladin would.

My "interrupter" wizard (max PER with the interrupting blows talent) works great, especially with some of the wall spells that ordinarily wouldn't even be worth taking on a wizard. It's a nice change of pace from the cookie-cutter wizard builds you usually see. I believe the build thread in these forums calls this kind of wizard a "silencer" if you're interested in exactly how to make one.

Backstab worked great in IE games for many reasons. First, backstab did up to 5x normal damage, giving you very strong burst damage. Second, stealth almost always held up long enough that you could successfully deliver your backstab before being spotted. Third, IE weapons were much stronger than PoE weapons with many more on-hit status effects, giving you a good chance to take your foe out of the fight permanently even if your backstab didn't drop him. Fourth, there were many ways to quickly re-enter stealth/invisibility in IE and do a quick succession of backstabs, drastically multiplying your damage. Finally, if all of those were exhausted and your enemy was somehow still standing, you could easily disengage with boots that gave you 2x movement speed. None of these things apply to any great degree in PoE either pre-2.0 or post-2.0. Backstab's damage multiplier is far weaker, stealth is far more detectable, weapon status effects are much weaker, opportunities for re-entering "backstab mode" are much fewer, and the ability to successfully disengage are all inferior to IE. While there are builds that successfully make use of PoE's backstabbing as a small part of their strategy, large changes would be needed to bring PoE's backstab anywhere near the usefulness of the IE version.

One thing to consider in choosing your main character is that the PC does all the talking and reaps all the rewards and penalties that come with that. PC priests and paladins get slightly better Holy Radiance and Faith and Conviction abilities; PCs who lack a high Lore skill miss out on some information; PCs with low Resolve miss some opportunities to persuade or intimidate. These differences are small, but if you (for example) wanted a rogue and paladin in your party but weren't sure which one to make your PC and which one should be hired at an inn, it might be slightly better to go with a paladin as your main character and the rogue as a hireling.

A couple of magazines have given a date of March, though I don't believe this has been confirmed by Obsidian.

If you do the White March relatively early, the mid-game critical path definitely becomes easier. But there is no real way around that in an expansion, unless you want to block players from entering it until Act 3. Baldur's Gate had the same issue with its expansion pack -- the XP (and gear) .gained from Durlag's Tower made the rest of the game (even) easier. I'd suggest postponing White March until Act 3 and then choosing to upscale it when you get there.

The devs have said on several occasions that PoE's rest system is designed to prevent the kind of "resting abuse" people used to do in BG/BG2. It's also partially a function of the 4th edition D&D ruleset on which PoE was substantially modeled, with per-rest powers intended to be used sparingly relative to per-encounter powers. If you could rest after each battle, as you essentially could in BG/BG2, then the difference between 1/rest and 1/encounter would become meaningless and characters would be substantially more powerful than intended. As you say, PoE's rest system doesn't fully accomplish this objective because it is easy to exit whatever dungeon you happen to be in and retreat to an inn. But there's still a time cost to doing this which, in my experience, a decent-sized chunk of the PoE community would rather not pay. Originally (pre-beta), you could only rest at campsites which were to be scattered across the game's major areas. (You can roughly think of those campsites as being "checkpoints" although the devs never used that terminology.) But as the devs discussed at PAX, there wasn't much of an in-game reason why monsters would set up campsites in their areas just in case an adventurer happened to come through and needed to rest. Nor, they've said on other occasions, did they want to have unlimited rest but with the possibility of a random encounter each time you'd try, because people would then just reload until the dice let their rest be uninterrupted. My personal preference would have been to let you rest on demand but with a guarantee of a tough encounter before your powers would recharge. This would take care of the die-roll problem and would cement the idea that, in a dungeon, you have to earn your resting place rather than bunking out and miraculously having your snoring go unnoticed for the next 8 hours. The 4-campfire limit doesn't strike me as an especially unreasonable compromise, but I agree with you that it's a bit annoying to be forced to leave treasure of any type on the ground just because the devs don't want you to pick up more than a certain amount. I guess one way around this would be to give you the copper cost of camping supplies if you tried to grab some while at the limit of 4? Just an idea but it seems like something along these lines might be an alternative way of addressing your concerns.

Right.

How would you build a melee cipher? I assume max might and INT would be mandatory, but would the remaining points go into PER for accuracy, DEX for faster attack speed, or CON for greater durability? Would you use mental binding and ectoplasmic echo like a ranged cipher would, or would you mainly opt for some of the cone-shaped attack powers since you are on the frontline?

The figurines are better-balanced this way, but on the other hand, some of the purchasable figurines are no longer worth spending the copper to acquire so you are out of luck if you previously bought them...

It is working as intended, but the devs made a terrible mistake in intending it. Losing the spells you choose while leveling up is one thing, but erasing the ones you earn through adventuring/scribing makes no sense at all. They should either leave the spellbook untouched or else reimburse the copper for the spells you earned through adventuring. (Which is very possible to do -- because the devs know exactly how many spells you received through leveling up even if the game didn't track exactly which ones you picked, you could receive copper for each spell over that amount.)

There are a couple of jarring moments in Pillars of Eternity where you suddenly realize the tactics that have served you well against "trash mobs" aren't enough to get the job done against tougher foes. I believe one of the devs referred to these moments as "wake-up calls" that are deliberately scattered through the game to help players understand what tough battles are like at that stage of the game and help them gauge whether their tactics are sufficient to overcome them. There's no shame in a party wipe when trying one of those battles for the first time -- it just means the battle served its intended function of signaling something to the player. Now, what the player decides to *do* with that signal is another matter. The devs intend for players to adjust their tactics until the encounter becomes winnable on a consistent basis, which then pays dividends throughout the remainder of the game. But it is also possible to simply reload until enough random die rolls go your way to scrape by with a victory, or (in most cases) bypass the tough encounter and continue along the game's critical path. I find this approach to be a good compromise in that players who enjoy tough fights can experience and learn from them, while players who don't can still experience the rich storyline the game has to offer (albeit by missing out on some treasure).

OK, I've just finished giving the last multiclass talent a shot and here are my thoughts: Acolyte's Radiance - Similar to holy radiance except it can only be used 1/rest. The endurance provided by this talent is not large and the fact that it can only be used once per rest makes it a poor choice except for players who rest exceptionally often. Apprentice's Sneak Attack - 70% less damage than the rogue ability but does apply in every situation where a rogue would be able to sneak attack. A reasonable though not stellar choice, especially for off-tanks who would typically be flanking their target anyway. Aspirant's Mark - 20% weaker than the druid spell and usable only 2/rest. Somewhat useful as an opening strike, especially for players who tend to rest fairly often. Enigma's Charm - 20% less duration than the cipher power but usable once per encounter. Not especially useful for casters once their spell slots become per-encounter instead of per-rest, but a solid choice for melee characters who want to broaden their combat options. Gallant's Focus - 33% weaker than the paladin aura (and does not stack with similar accuracy boosters). If no one else in your group is providing a party-wide accuracy boost, a permanent +4 ends up boosting party damage by a reasonable though not stellar amount. Novice's suffering - Boosts unarmed damage to the point where unarmed attacks become competitive with lower-end weapons. A solid choice for niche builds that make frequent unarmed attacks, like druids who focus on animal-form melee, but too weak to justify otherwise. Outlander's Frenzy - 25% weaker than the barbarian power and with a drastically reduced frequency of use (once per rest). The bonus to attack speed is decent for characters with on-hit weapons/abilities, but the inability to use this more than 1/rest makes it a luxury that most melee builds (the apparently natural choice for this kind of talent) won't be able to afford. Prestidigitator's Missiles - 33% fewer missiles than the wizard spell and can be used 2/rest. This isn't a bad choice for low-level characters, and the corrode damage type makes it occasionally useful later on, but the amount of damage it inflicts just isn't high enough to justify most characters taking it. Rhymer's Summon - 33% fewer skeletons than the chanter invocation. The skeletons are too weak to dish out meaningful damage and die too quickly to block choke points, but can at least briefly flank enemies if you have character(s) capable of sneak attacking. Runner's wounding shot - 20% weaker than the ranger talent and can be used half as often (1/encounter instead of 2/encounter). Movement-impeding conditions like hobble have become somewhat more useful in 2.0 and the 1/encounter duration makes this a competitive though not stellar choice for most non-caster builds, especially low-level rogues. Veteran's Recovery - 50% less endurance regeneration than the fighter ability. The very slow rate of endurance regeneration makes this talent barely noticeable except on ultra-low-constitution characters, who likely don't have a spare slot to take this feat anyway. On the whole, I found Enigma's Charm to be the most worthwhile multiclass feat as it opened up some interesting strategic options (especially for disengagement) and could be used reasonably often (albeit not at the start of combat). Runner's Wounding Shot was also somewhat better than expected in a post-patch environment where foes race past tanks more frequently to reach the backline. Most of the other multiclass talents would be at least situationally useful with the exception of Acolyte's Radiance and Veteran's Recovery, which are in my judgment too weak for just about any build at the moment.

The monk's quest is in Part 2, along with the barbarian companion.

Yes, this is a deliberate design decision, ostensibly for balance reasons. If a cap were needed, it seems like 6 per party might be a more reasonable approach than 1 per character so as not to overly punish solo parties, but that's not what the devs decided to do. Also note that certain spells count as traps and are subject to the 1-per-character limit.

Three classes didn't have joinable NPCs in the core game and only two companions were added in Part 1 of the expansion, so yes, one class remains unrepresented. Presumably a barbarian will be added in Part 2, or you can roll one up for yourself at an inn.

Pillars was written from the point of view that the Hollowborn controversy hasn't been dealt with yet. If you could go back to the main gameworld after defeating Thaos, people would immediately start complaining that there's no C&C in the game because their "win" isn't being properly recognized. And while you might think the devs could work around this by just adding a hearty "congratulations!" to each NPC's current dialogue, it's pretty clear that NPCs are going to have *very* different opinions about whatever solution you picked to "solve" the Hollowborn issue. The devs would need to think through how each NPC would react to that, as well as removing any quests whose in-game rationale would be negated by the Hollowborn issue having already been addressed, which would then lead to complaints by people potentially unable to get whatever XP/gold/items would have come from those quests. Coding-wise, it would certainly be *possible* for the devs to let people come back to the main game after defeating Thaos, just as it would have been possible for BioWare to let people come back to the main game after defeating Sarevok. But I can certainly see why both BioWare and Obsidian decided not to let this happen -- and am looking forward to being able to continue the main story in Pillars 2!

If you do upscale it, do you get better rewards?

The new system is not multiclassing as most IE players would understand that term. If you're most familiar with a 3rd edition D&D setup (Icewind Dale 2) in which every level-up gives you the opportunity to branch out into a new class, you can't do that here. If you're most familiar with a 2nd edition D&D setup (Baldur's Gate) in which you can level up in two classes simultaneously, you can't do that here either. What you can do is choose from 11 new talents that give your character a small taste of what it would be like to be a different class. One example is a new talent modeled on the rogue's sneak attack -- it is weaker than the actual rogue ability, and you would gain no other features of the rogue class by taking it, but a fighter character might "feel" a bit like a fighter/rogue if you were to select it. (This is very similar to what they did in 4th edition D&D.)

The answer to "why start midgame?" actually isn't very complicated. Every NPC in the game is written from the point of view that the "main issue" of the game hasn't been resolved yet. If you could "win" the game and then return to areas you had previously visited, all the NPCs would speak as if you were still doing the main questline, which would lead players to naturally complain that their "win" wasn't being recognized and appreciated by those NPCs. This is the same reason why Baldur's Gate didn't let you continue after dealing with Sarevok, so it isn't as if Obsidian is inventing this way of handling the endgame. It would be neat if you could return to the gameworld and see responsive NPCs comment on your endgame choices, but that would be a very time-consuming task for the devs because (being careful to avoid spoilers) different NPCs might have very different reactions to the manner in which you chose to "win". Maybe we'll see that in Pillars 2...

I can understand possibly erasing the spells you select at level-up, but also wiping the ones you earn and pay for over the course of the game through adventuring? That makes about as much sense as erasing the armor a priest has earned/bought or the weapons a fighter has earned/bought. If the engine doesn't track which specific spells you select at level-up, it would probably make the most sense to just leave the spellbook untouched (and not let wizards select any new spells while respeccing). Alternatively, the engine would certainly know how *many* spells you selected over the course of your lifetime when you leveled up, so perhaps that number of spells could be erased from your book when the respec begins (with the player of course having the option to reselect them as he levels back up). That would be cumbersome but it at least would diminish the punitive aspect of respeccing a wizard.